Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

God and Gender [..isms], huh?

Expand Messages
  • NEFILIM001@aol.com
    ..Of course males stumble, bumble, and scratch their heads when a female Tells Them Off . She has everything he wants, so even if he wins the argument, he
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      "..Of course "males stumble, bumble, and scratch their heads when a
      female Tells Them Off". She has everything he wants, so even if he wins the
      argument, he still loses. It's a very unequal world... ."

      ----eduard, you wouldn't dare make this statement about females. Because
      female very comfortably speak-up for themselves. Seriously, would you pat a
      woman on the head and murmur that it is a very unequal world? You feel safe
      making such statements of course, because you know that males will not disagree
      nor confront you in any manner--they know their 'places'. Most males are
      quite like you, they know better than to have an 'objective' opinion about the
      other gender's actions or opinions. The walk the line, so to speak. They
      make little jokes about how warm and wonderful it is to lose so they can have
      peace in the household, and grin and bear it. Wow, that is so good for the so
      called 'little woman' to digest, huh? Does patting a female on the head
      with a wink, wink 'yes dear', really keep females out of your hair--regardless
      the seriousness of the matter? Does not the actual reality and seriousness of
      the matter count, instead? What if it were about a SMALL nuclear spill, or
      a BIG maggot in the pudding--where do you draw the line on an equal and
      objective exchange with the other equal gender?

      Oh, males will have hard, fast and furious opinions about everything else.
      Politics, The futures market; the weather, but they know which side their
      toast is buttered on when it comes to gender intergender/intragender
      confrontation and discussion. Lets be honest, females will confront/discuss
      anything/everything, because they have spent the past 50 years clearing a path for
      themselves. Their speakers and writers made sure of it. Males keep to the
      safe-side of issues; females recognize no such safe-side of issues. Just as if
      while vigorously defending myself against being hit by my girlfriend (even in
      an obvious public setting) -- and I were to accidentally bump her, causing a
      bruise, I am indicted for abuse. note: The exact same circumstances in
      reverse--nothing happens to the female. If you have a boy he will have a lot of
      explaining to do--even when he is absolutely innocent; if you have a girl, you
      will defend her situation--legitimate or not. Because you'd better.

      Frank




      **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
      (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • eduard at home
      eduard --- You miss the point of my comment entirely. But then I was trying to be subtle. ... From: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Message 2 of 7 , Jan 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        eduard ---
        You miss the point of my comment entirely. But then I was trying to
        be subtle.

        -----Original Message-----
        From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
        Of NEFILIM001@...
        Sent: January-01-08 8:06 PM
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Cc: NEFILIM001@...
        Subject: [existlist] God and Gender [..isms], huh?

        "..Of course "males stumble, bumble, and scratch their heads when a
        female Tells Them Off". She has everything he wants, so even if he wins the
        argument, he still loses. It's a very unequal world... ."

        ----eduard, you wouldn't dare make this statement about females. Because
        female very comfortably speak-up for themselves. Seriously, would you pat
        a
        woman on the head and murmur that it is a very unequal world? You feel
        safe
        making such statements of course, because you know that males will not
        disagree
        nor confront you in any manner--they know their 'places'. Most males are
        quite like you, they know better than to have an 'objective' opinion about
        the
        other gender's actions or opinions. The walk the line, so to speak. They
        make little jokes about how warm and wonderful it is to lose so they can
        have
        peace in the household, and grin and bear it. Wow, that is so good for the
        so
        called 'little woman' to digest, huh? Does patting a female on the head
        with a wink, wink 'yes dear', really keep females out of your
        hair--regardless
        the seriousness of the matter? Does not the actual reality and seriousness
        of
        the matter count, instead? What if it were about a SMALL nuclear spill, or

        a BIG maggot in the pudding--where do you draw the line on an equal and
        objective exchange with the other equal gender?

        Oh, males will have hard, fast and furious opinions about everything else.

        Politics, The futures market; the weather, but they know which side their
        toast is buttered on when it comes to gender intergender/intragender
        confrontation and discussion. Lets be honest, females will
        confront/discuss
        anything/everything, because they have spent the past 50 years clearing a
        path for
        themselves. Their speakers and writers made sure of it. Males keep to the

        safe-side of issues; females recognize no such safe-side of issues. Just
        as if
        while vigorously defending myself against being hit by my girlfriend (even
        in
        an obvious public setting) -- and I were to accidentally bump her, causing
        a
        bruise, I am indicted for abuse. note: The exact same circumstances in
        reverse--nothing happens to the female. If you have a boy he will have a
        lot of
        explaining to do--even when he is absolutely innocent; if you have a girl,
        you
        will defend her situation--legitimate or not. Because you'd better.

        Frank




        **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
        (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



        Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

        Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
        Yahoo! Groups Links
      • jimstuart51
        Frank, You write: Oh, males will have hard, fast and furious opinions about everything else. Politics, The futures market; the weather, but they know which
        Message 3 of 7 , Jan 2, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Frank,

          You write:

          "Oh, males will have hard, fast and furious opinions about everything
          else. Politics, The futures market; the weather, but they know which
          side their toast is buttered on when it comes to gender
          intergender/intragender confrontation and discussion. Lets be honest,
          females will confront/discuss anything/everything, because they have
          spent the past 50 years clearing a path for themselves. Their
          speakers and writers made sure of it. Males keep to the safe-side of
          issues; females recognize no such safe-side of issues. Just as if
          while vigorously defending myself against being hit by my girlfriend
          (even in an obvious public setting) -- and I were to accidentally
          bump her, causing a
          bruise, I am indicted for abuse. note: The exact same circumstances
          in reverse--nothing happens to the female. If you have a boy he will
          have a lot of explaining to do--even when he is absolutely innocent;
          if you have a girl, you will defend her situation--legitimate or not.
          Because you'd better."

          I have some sympathy with what you write, but if we are strictly
          objective then we have to admit that men/boys are physically stronger
          (statistically) than women/girls.

          Also approximately 90% of murders are committed by men, over 90% of
          sex offenders are men and around 90% of child sex abuse is carried
          out by men.

          Most murder victims are men, but most victims of sexual offences are
          women.

          So perhaps in the sort of case you mention, men have it hard and
          women have it easy, but overall it is men who are usually
          dysfunctional, and women who are usually the ones to suffer.

          Jim
        • Aija Veldre Beldavs
          ... even in strongly patriarchal societies role tends to precede gender when occasionally a female assumes responsibility of actual public power usually to
          Message 4 of 7 , Jan 2, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            jimstuart51 wrote:
            > Frank,
            > You write:
            > in reverse--nothing happens to the female. If you have a boy he will
            > have a lot of explaining to do--even when he is absolutely innocent;
            > if you have a girl, you will defend her situation--legitimate or not.

            > I have some sympathy with what you write, but if we are strictly
            > objective then we have to admit that men/boys are physically stronger
            > (statistically) than women/girls. [...]
            > So perhaps in the sort of case you mention, men have it hard and
            > women have it easy, but overall it is men who are usually
            > dysfunctional, and women who are usually the ones to suffer.>
            > Jim

            even in strongly patriarchal societies role tends to precede gender when
            occasionally a female assumes responsibility of actual public power
            usually to fill a slot for which suitable men are not more readily
            available, recent example being B. Bhutto.

            during the period the 1st female post-Soviet country president, V.V.
            Freibergs was in power for 2 terms, i saw little evidence that she was
            predominantly criticized on Latvian language portals more in a
            sex-specific way than for her actual policies.

            traditional vernacular Latvian society - somewhat at odds with (in that
            area) late-coming, universal, and more patriarchal Christian influence -
            has generally been characterized as relatively gender egalitarian in
            such as inheritance or kinship lineage, while including matrilocal(where
            the wife not the incoming husband owns the homestead) or neolocal
            options within a preferred patrilocal residence pattern. this is not to
            say that males and females don't predominantly (but not exclusively)
            assume gender-typical roles associated with statistical strength
            differences (men ploughing heavy soil, but women also doing heavy
            agricultural work and even ploughing in emergencies when men are absent,
            men felling trees but women also participating in the heavy physical
            labor of swiden/ slash and burn cultivation in an ecology where
            primitive agriculture reaches its limits). it is to say that relatively
            egalitarian societies can be readily more flexible depending on
            priorities, survival not infrequently dictating the need to fit a slot
            role to be more important than gender (an example of maximizing
            resources, which hunter-gatherer populations also recognized).

            aija
          • eduard at home
            ... aija --- even in strongly patriarchal societies role tends to precede gender when occasionally a female assumes responsibility of actual public power
            Message 5 of 7 , Jan 2, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              jimstuart51 wrote:
              > Frank,
              > You write:
              > in reverse--nothing happens to the female. If you have a boy he will
              > have a lot of explaining to do--even when he is absolutely innocent;
              > if you have a girl, you will defend her situation--legitimate or not.

              > I have some sympathy with what you write, but if we are strictly
              > objective then we have to admit that men/boys are physically stronger
              > (statistically) than women/girls. [...]
              > So perhaps in the sort of case you mention, men have it hard and
              > women have it easy, but overall it is men who are usually
              > dysfunctional, and women who are usually the ones to suffer.>
              > Jim

              aija ---
              even in strongly patriarchal societies role tends to precede gender when
              occasionally a female assumes responsibility of actual public power
              usually to fill a slot for which suitable men are not more readily
              available, recent example being B. Bhutto.

              during the period the 1st female post-Soviet country president, V.V.
              Freibergs was in power for 2 terms, i saw little evidence that she was
              predominantly criticized on Latvian language portals more in a
              sex-specific way than for her actual policies.

              traditional vernacular Latvian society - somewhat at odds with (in that
              area) late-coming, universal, and more patriarchal Christian influence -
              has generally been characterized as relatively gender egalitarian in
              such as inheritance or kinship lineage, while including matrilocal(where
              the wife not the incoming husband owns the homestead) or neolocal
              options within a preferred patrilocal residence pattern. this is not to
              say that males and females don't predominantly (but not exclusively)
              assume gender-typical roles associated with statistical strength
              differences (men ploughing heavy soil, but women also doing heavy
              agricultural work and even ploughing in emergencies when men are absent,
              men felling trees but women also participating in the heavy physical
              labor of swiden/ slash and burn cultivation in an ecology where
              primitive agriculture reaches its limits). it is to say that relatively
              egalitarian societies can be readily more flexible depending on
              priorities, survival not infrequently dictating the need to fit a slot
              role to be more important than gender (an example of maximizing
              resources, which hunter-gatherer populations also recognized).

              eduard ---
              It is always possible to find some woman in history who has taken on
              a male role or function. Or to take on the role when the male is not
              available ... like when the knights went off on a crusade.

              However, I think that in at least earlier societies, there were
              defined roles for men and women that applied to the average and
              non-emergency condition.

              Women were more grounded than men and thus took on tasks that were
              home related or in hunter-gatherer societies, that of the gatherer. And I
              think that in large part because women are more grounded, they have had a
              greater role than men in spiritual side of society ... at least until men
              took it over as a specialization. Of course, that is shear opinion and
              although books have been written about the possibility of women initiating
              religion, the idea may be unfounded. The only thing that I point to is what
              I see as a greater commitment by women to family.
            • Albert
              Jim, Men are for now the stronger ones, and yes, usually the aggressor. They are programmed to be so. However, the world is changing, and for the worse. On a
              Message 6 of 7 , Jan 3, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Jim,

                Men are for now the stronger ones, and yes, usually the aggressor. They are programmed to be so.
                However, the world is changing, and for the worse. On a bio-chemical level, men are literally becoming women and this will result in women becoming the aggressor.

                No justifiable purpose can be felt in feeling sorry for the so-called "victims" in the context of sex alone, because all the ladies and gentlemen have left the stage in this our present generation of "people". I will refrain from describing exactly what we have been left with for 'fear' of offending the children and politically correct.

                Albert.
                - I am inclined to side with Frank somewhat here...


                ----- Original Message -----
                From: jimstuart51
                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 11:50 PM
                Subject: [existlist] Re: God and Gender [..isms], huh?



                Frank,

                You write:

                "Oh, males will have hard, fast and furious opinions about everything
                else. Politics, The futures market; the weather, but they know which
                side their toast is buttered on when it comes to gender
                intergender/intragender confrontation and discussion. Lets be honest,
                females will confront/discuss anything/everything, because they have
                spent the past 50 years clearing a path for themselves. Their
                speakers and writers made sure of it. Males keep to the safe-side of
                issues; females recognize no such safe-side of issues. Just as if
                while vigorously defending myself against being hit by my girlfriend
                (even in an obvious public setting) -- and I were to accidentally
                bump her, causing a
                bruise, I am indicted for abuse. note: The exact same circumstances
                in reverse--nothing happens to the female. If you have a boy he will
                have a lot of explaining to do--even when he is absolutely innocent;
                if you have a girl, you will defend her situation--legitimate or not.
                Because you'd better."

                I have some sympathy with what you write, but if we are strictly
                objective then we have to admit that men/boys are physically stronger
                (statistically) than women/girls.

                Also approximately 90% of murders are committed by men, over 90% of
                sex offenders are men and around 90% of child sex abuse is carried
                out by men.

                Most murder victims are men, but most victims of sexual offences are
                women.

                So perhaps in the sort of case you mention, men have it hard and
                women have it easy, but overall it is men who are usually
                dysfunctional, and women who are usually the ones to suffer.

                Jim






                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                No virus found in this incoming message.
                Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: 1/2/2008 11:29


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Aija Veldre Beldavs
                ... in modern times Mary Baker Eddy initiated Christian Science.:) the religion does have a secular slant.:) but your response might be used to illustrate
                Message 7 of 7 , Jan 4, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  eduard at home:

                  > However, I think that in at least earlier societies, there were
                  > defined roles for men and women that applied to the average and
                  > non-emergency condition.
                  >
                  > Women were more grounded than men and thus took on tasks that were
                  > home related or in hunter-gatherer societies, that of the gatherer. And I
                  > think that in large part because women are more grounded, they have had a
                  > greater role than men in spiritual side of society ... at least until men
                  > took it over as a specialization. Of course, that is shear opinion and
                  > although books have been written about the possibility of women initiating
                  > religion, the idea may be unfounded. The only thing that I point to is what
                  > I see as a greater commitment by women to family.

                  in modern times Mary Baker Eddy "initiated" Christian Science.:)
                  the religion does have a secular slant.:)

                  but your response might be used to illustrate the limits to normalizing
                  and standardizing to universal voices from the normative classics of
                  western cultures without hearing those voices that lack resources,
                  motivation or surplus energy to jump through the hoops to make it to the
                  top academic big language publication lists.:)

                  i deal with this a lot, being interested in minor underrepresented
                  languages and cultures. much written on them in the major languages is
                  pretty crudely off target and misinformed. usually, though, the
                  information these areas provide when it does not fit predominant
                  thinking is just ignored, rather than investigated, even if it contains
                  information that is very relevant to issues of current concern. the
                  language barrier is quite strong. gender issues are one example.

                  some remarks (sorry this relates to posts a few days ago rather than
                  now) and obviously i can't respond here with a scholarly book - these
                  are generalizations based on much more study:

                  all long-term societies recognize gender, but what gender roles are
                  played differ quite a bit and the simpler, less differentiated
                  subsistence societies exhibit more variation as each adapts to different
                  conditions to maximize critical resources.

                  strong patriarchy laid its groundwork to increasingly become the
                  dominant form of social organization, but almost surely not strongly
                  developed with hunting-gatherering cultures, which as subsistence
                  cultures have some of the most egalitarian or meritocratic examples.
                  northern hunting peoples venerate the female bear, seal, and egg-laying
                  water bird as cosmic mothers and strong female models. fishing was not
                  exclusively a male job in many such societies; it becomes such with
                  deep sea fishing and, as with many other types of work, with
                  specialization. in southern climates, female cats, such as lionesses
                  and panthers, provide a similar strong female models. but there is also
                  the model of herd animals with a male protecting his harem or a shepherd
                  his flock. nevertheless, early pastoralists also have their "warrior
                  women" (i'd guess initially not so much permanent virgins as young women
                  corresponding to young male initiation groups who would eventually
                  settle down to have children) and warrior queens, a tradition perhaps
                  surviving in African societies with mother queens who hold their own
                  independent courts. a mother queen is an independent ruler, not such
                  because she is the king's wife. she may be a sister, however.

                  there are female burials in the steppes with weapons, and the bones of
                  the Sarmatian females show their roles were not just ceremonial, and
                  such burials of females with weapons are also found in northern Eurasia.
                  in these societies unmarried women without brothers might assume what
                  are now seen as male-typical roles if needed. but to say that they
                  "assumed male roles" is not itself without patriarchal bias, typical in
                  a society where such roles for women are seen as highly unusual or myth
                  as fantasy. too much scholarship on this subject normalizes, instead of
                  acknowledging diversity.

                  it seems to me more likely the tendency in human culture has been for
                  some time to evolve rather from tolerance of more complex diversity
                  necessary to exploit different habitats surviving in harsh subsistence
                  conditions to near-universal more prescribed mono-culture with
                  superficial differences and classified deviants. orally transmitted
                  native religions tend to be loose and not that resistant to better
                  organized or aggressive belief systems. for instance, third sex, the
                  male-female or female-male, was known among native Americans as well as
                  among early Eurasians whose magic users often came from the ranks of
                  those in some ways atypical, but was seen as demonic abomination by
                  Europeans at least from the Middle Ages on, a view challenged by fairly
                  recent movements, such as secular humanism. the values of dominant
                  better organized belief systems tend to spread and replace indigenous ones.

                  true, myth doesn't necessarily straightforwardly reflect society. often
                  it may be fantasy with a deeper truth, or exhibit role-reversal or
                  carnival very different from the real lives of ordinary women. true,
                  there are deities who shift between being male or female or are
                  androgynes or hermaphrodites. nevertheless, sometimes myth does give
                  insight to society, especially how it is organized in that known social
                  or natural models are used for cosmic ones. loosely organized oral
                  societies are likely to have gods shifting around, instead of tightly
                  organized in rigid hierarchies with well-defined roles and scripts
                  tightly connected to only certain deities.

                  also, notably in mythology across the world sex shifts linearly and
                  irreversibly very much more often from earlier female to male, rather
                  than the other way around. thus, among the earlier ndo-Europeans
                  (perhaps from a time the Indo-Europeans became as strongly patriarchal
                  as they did) early on there is a female sun among the Hittites. to this
                  day among the Balts there is a sun - dawn/ mother - daughter dyad (the
                  deities remain nature forces rather than evolve into strongly
                  anthropomorphical gods - "Saule" means "sun," not "goddess of the sun
                  named X; "Saules meita" means Sun Daughter or Sun as Daughter). the
                  point is that early myth is less rigidly patriarchal and not just
                  because of fantasy within a full-blown patriarchy.

                  of course, one could argue the Baltic Saule illustrates male-typical and
                  female-typical stereotypes.:) in contrast to the male sun god of the
                  heroic and imperial age Greeks and Romans whose sun god eventually
                  acquired strong imperial properties, Saule of the Baltic daina-songs is
                  mostly a female-typical, gentle, healing and warming deity concerned
                  with orphans and other disadvantaged members of society, rather than a
                  state (as the Japanese sun goddess) or war goddess (the mythology
                  doesn't really reflect permanent specialized warriors maintained by a
                  court, but farmers as needed assuming such roles temporarily). among the
                  Celts there also was a fire and water hot spring deity Sulis, Sol among
                  the Germanic peoples, and Solntse among the Slavs, but they have receded
                  from history before a dominant male archetypes and are minor deities.
                  female suns have survived also among non-Indo-Europeans, among northern
                  Eurasians, some native Americans, and aboriginal Australians.

                  the point is as one becomes immersed in what is a vernacular, largely
                  pre-Christian daina-world, one becomes impressed with the richness of
                  the nuances. the female-typical emerges as simultaneously caring and
                  strong, self-reliant and adaptive, finding humor and joy even in a harsh
                  world because she must, not the least because she is or will likely be a
                  mother, but also, significantly, even if Laima/ Fortune has not set out
                  this as her path.

                  this is the truth one gains by immersing oneself into ANY vernacular
                  tradition, perhaps all the more interesting when it is not well known
                  and therefore has more surprises, sometimes peaking to the point of awe
                  as one fully grasps the alternative implications to common assumptions.
                  such an immersion can be a rich experience, a different level than
                  scholarly abstractions in major languages - i'd say closer to the ground
                  of lived experience.

                  aija
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.